Two Controversies In Paris

Through the first few days of the Paris Olympics, two controversies have stood out.  One actually started before the Opening Ceremony, when the Canadian women's soccer team was caught using a drone to spy on New Zealand's practice before the two played each other in the first game of the tournament.  The other is in tennis, specifically regarding late withdrawals and replacing those players in the draw.

Let's start with Olympic soccer's very own Spygate.  The culprit was a Canadian staffer, who was immediately sent home, along with the assistant coach he reported to.  The Canadian head coach then announced that she was voluntarily withdrawing from coaching the New Zealand game to "take accountability."  The Canadian Olympic Committee promptly responded by revoking the Olympic accreditation of all three.  I put "take accountability" in quotes because the head coach clearly knew what was going on, as FIFA's investigation found.

As it turns out, this wasn't the first time Canada was caught cheating.  They were apparently doing it as far back as Tokyo, when they won the gold, if not longer.  The U.S. has known about it for a while, but didn't see any benefit in reporting the Canadians because of how closely the federations need to work together for the 2026 World Cup (among other events).  So, this didn't exactly come as a surprise to U.S. Soccer.

After its investigation of the incident, FIFA suspended the three staff members in question for one year.  They also docked Canada six points in the Olympic group standings (three for each of the two violations committed in Paris).  That penalty wasn't announced until after Canada beat New Zealand, which dropped their point total from 3 to -3, making it virtually impossible for the Canadians to advance to the knockout phase.  Or did it?

Canada's first game after the scandal was against France.  They clearly were not supposed to win.  They did, resetting their point total to 0.  Now, all they need to do is beat Colombia and they'll make the quarterfinals.  As improbable as it seemed after the penalty was announced, it's not that far-fetched at all anymore.  In fact, it would be a surprise if Canada doesn't beat Colombia.  Which really says a lot about their players, who clearly aren't at fault for any of this.

The Canadian Olympic Committee immediately appealed the six-point reduction, arguing that it was too harsh a sanction.  They're only playing three games, and had two wins' worth of points taken away, meaning the maximum they can finish with is 3.  It's also not the players' fault, yet they're the ones being penalized, which seems unfair. 

I understand the logic behind that argument.  It's the same one that college programs make when they get postseason bans for past infractions or actions by their coach.  However, my response is the same here as it is in those situations.  Don't blame the governing body (be it the NCAA, FIFA or the IOC) that issued the sanction.  Blame the person who put you in that situation to begin with.  No, it's not "fair" that you have to suffer because of someone else's wrongdoing.  But if that wrongdoing goes unpunished, how is that fair to everyone who was impacted by it?

In tennis, meanwhile, the controversy involves withdrawals, specifically withdrawals after the draw was made.  There were far too many, which is another issue entirely.  However, the method by which those players are replaced in the field is what's drawn criticism.  It should be noted here that the ITF and IOC run the Olympic tennis tournaments, not the ATP and WTA.  And their replacement method is necessarily different.

At an ATP or WTA tournament, if a player withdraws before their first match, they're replaced in the draw with a "lucky loser," the highest-ranked player who lost in the last round of qualifying.  This is actually fairly common at Grand Slams when there's an injury, etc.  However, at the Olympics, there's an entry deadline (which is later in tennis than most other sports), as well as an athlete quota for each sport that cannot be exceeded.  So, there's no room for lucky losers or alternates.  Instead, if someone withdraws, they can only be replaced by somebody who's already entered in the Olympics, which likely means a doubles specialist.

That's exactly what happened in the Olympic men's tournament.  Novak Djokovic's first round match was against Matthew Ebden, an Australian who hasn't played singles in so long that he doesn't even have a singles ranking.  It wasn't a great look, and everyone knew exactly what would happen.  I give Ebden credit, though.  He knew as well as anybody that he was overmatched.  Yet he went out there and took his beating against the No. 1 player in the world.  (Sidebar: how is Alcaraz not No. 1 when he's won the last two Grand Slams and Djokovic has only made one final this year?)

Olympic tennis has always been a bit of a different animal than the Grand Slams, and not only because you have overmatched doubles specialists or lower-ranked players (who qualify via continental events instead of by their ranking) getting their butts kicked in the first round.  There's always a good number of top players who opt out.  For various reasons.  (Frankly, I can't really blame anybody for not wanting to randomly play on clay a month before the US Open.)  Others prioritize the Olympics and wouldn't miss it.  It's that important to them. 

Then you also have singles players who never players deciding that they suddenly want to since that's another chance to win an Olympic medal.  To me, that's no different than the doubles players getting pressed into action in singles.  Neither Nadal nor Alcaraz ever plays doubles.  Yet suddenly they're a doubles team?  I mean, yeah, I guess it's kinda cool.  But it's also kinda ridiculous.

Getting back to the withdrawals, though.  I blame the players who withdraw for that.  Especially if they withdraw after the draw's already made.  Something happened in the two days between the draw being made and the tournament starting that you're no longer able to play?  I'm especially calling out the players who withdrew from singles, but are still playing doubles.  No!  If you withdraw from singles, you withdraw from the whole tournament!  (That's a rule I think should be implemented at Grand Slams, too.)  If the draw hasn't been made yet, that's one thing.  Then they're still able to replace you.  Once the draw's out, though, that's on you.

Brad Gilbert also called out the ATP for having a tournament in Croatia that ended on Saturday, the day after the Opening Ceremony.  Both finalists were entered in the Olympics and played their first-round matches on Sunday.  That's just dumb.  If you're entered in the Olympics (which start on Saturday), you shouldn't be allowed to play in a different tournament that ends on Saturday.  I've gotta say, he's got a point there!  That's a completely different problem, though.

Well, It Was Unique

When Paris promised us a "one of a kind" Opening Ceremony along the banks of the Seine rather than inside the Stade de France, I wasn't quite sure what to expect.  I liked the concept of showcasing everything the city has to offer and making it accessible to hundreds of thousands of fans, but wasn't sure if it would work.  It would either be spectacular or a disaster.  Unfortunately, it was the second one.

The memorable Opening Ceremonies of Sydney, Beijing and London it was not.  Actually, scratch that.  It was memorable.  But not for the right reasons.  Although, they definitely achieved their goal of a "one of a kind" ceremony that was definitely unique.  And there were some enjoyable parts.  Just not enough of them.

I actually thought the way they started the ceremony was very clever.  A torchbearer running into the Stade de France, only to wonder where everybody was before French soccer legend Zinedine Zidane saved the day.  Unfortunately, it was pretty much all downhill from there, though.

Now, there was one thing that was completely out of their control.  It was pouring throughout much of the Ceremony!  After the years of planning and all that preparation, it, of course, had to rain on the big night!  It hadn't rained during a Summer Olympic Opening Ceremony since 1952!  That's just bad luck.  I don't really think it impacted the Ceremony one way or the other, though.  People either had umbrellas or ponchos or they didn't and got wet (although, I hope athletes didn't get sick by getting wet in what would otherwise be extremely pleasant temperatures).

Mixing the Parade of Nations with the cultural presentation seemed like a good idea in theory.  In reality, though, it made everything feel so disjointed.  The fact that everything was so spread out didn't help matters, either.  Some performances were held on the steps of buildings overlooking the river.  Others were on barges alongside the athlete boats.  And the stuff that wasn't on the water was obviously pretty far away.  It was confusing and enough to give you whiplash, especially with the way they kept cutting back and forth to that fashion show (I don't know if that was NBC or the world feed's decision)!

They also took away from the spectacle of some of the key elements by putting almost too much focus on the Seine.  There were no French Olympic legends carrying the Olympic flag into the stadium.  Instead, it was some woman on horseback wearing it as a cape as she "rode" up the river, which looked creepy in the pitch black of night, then walking it by herself up that long stage that they made to look like the Eiffel Tower (which was a cool touch).  And, I'm not 100 percent sure, but I think the Olympic flag might've been upside down after they raised it up the flagpole!

And what was that with the torch?  I don't really know what to make of that!  They had that mysterious figure take it down the parade route to the Trocadero...only to then put it on a boat and send it right back!  And that hot air balloon thing?  That might just be the weirdest Olympic cauldron in history! 

Although, I can't help but be proud of myself for nailing the final two torchbearers who actually lit the cauldron--Teddy Riner and Marie-Jose Perec.  That final portion of the torch relay (after it got off that boat with Serena, Rafa, Carl Lewis and Nadia Comaneci) was actually one of the better parts.  In honor of the 2024 Olympics, it was 24 French Olympic and Paralympic champions, who all ran together after handing it off.  Having the 100-year-old Charles Coste, a 1948 Olympic gold medalist in cycling who was born the year Paris last hosted the Olympics and is France's oldest living Olympic champion, be the final torchbearer before Perec and Riner was a particularly nice touch.

That spectacular light show on the Eiffel Tower was another highlight.  If they don't do that every year on New Year's Eve and Bastille Day, they should.  Celine Dion's finale was sensational, as well! They reportedly paid her $2 million to perform.  It was well worth it.  She was as showstopping as ever!  The performance of "Imagine," which has become an Olympic Opening Ceremony staple, was equally beautiful.

Celine Dion's powerful voice was just one of many different musical styles that was used.  I've never seen such variety at an Olympic ceremony.  She and Lady Gaga were the headliners, but they touched on every different style of French music.  They went from Les Miserables to heavy metal to classical to, of course, the can-can to rap to opera (the performance of "La Marseillaise" got lost in the shuffle since it was mixed in with everything else, but it was beautiful).  So, you certainly can't accuse them of leaving anybody out.

There was also something cool about the variety of boats used to transport the athletes.  That was actually one of the things I was most curious to see going in.  For the most part, I think they pulled it off.  The United States and France, with their huge delegations, had what looked like cruise ships packed to the brim.  Some of the smaller delegations, meanwhile, looked like somebody took a handful of buddies out on the boat just to hang out.  All they were missing was the cooler full of beers.  (That's not a criticism at all.  I actually thought some of the smaller boats were the coolest-looking ones.  And I loved that they had boats of all different sizes.)

Those multi-team boats, though.  I have mixed feelings about those.  I get why they had countries share boats.  And, on the one hand, it was cool to see athletes from different nations all mixed together at the Opening Ceremony, which is something we normally only see at the Closing Ceremony.  Although, on the other hand, there's something special about marching into the stadium and hearing your country's name announced, and that moment was somewhat taken away by sharing your "entrance" with other nations.

Another thing I have mixed feelings about was the red carpet for celebrity arrivals.  For one thing, it's Paris.  So, it's very appropriate for the setting.  The Olympics aren't about the celebrities in attendance, though.  They're about the athletes.  If this was a one-time deal because they were in Paris, I guess I'm fine with it.  But the next Olympics are in LA, and they aren't exactly lacking for celebrities there, so I fear this is going to become a regular thing, which is an idea I'm not a fan of.

Ultimately, though, this Opening Ceremony achieved exactly what they were looking for.  They wanted to showcase all that Paris has to offer.  They wanted the city itself to be one of the stars.  And there's no denying that they were successful in that regard.  There's absolutely no mistaking where this ceremony was taking place.

It was an idea that was as bold as it was novel.  Having the Olympic Opening Ceremony in the heart of the city instead of inside a stadium.  It was worth giving it a shot, too.  You don't know if it'll work until you try it.  And for all the security risks they took and the logistical and technical challenges it presented, they did pull it off.  Not without a hitch, but they pulled it off nonetheless.

With all that being said, however, I hope it was a one-time thing.  LA will have its own unique Opening Ceremony at both the L.A. Coliseum and SoFi Stadium in 2028, but even that promises to be more traditional than what we saw in Paris.  That's the missing element that made this Opening Ceremony feel lacking.  Paris brought the Opening Ceremony to everybody, and it was packed along the parade route.  But there's just something about having it in a stadium that brings the excitement.  And that excitement was the biggest thing that was missing at this Opening Ceremony.

Returning to France & the US

There were two major announcements today that, while not directly related, definitely have an impact on each other.  On the first day of competition at the Paris Olympics, the IOC confirmed the hosts of the 2030 and 2034 Winter Games, awarding the former to the French Alps and the latter to Salt Lake City.  Meanwhile, the NBA rejected TNT's matching offer and formally approved its new media rights deal with ESPN/ABC, NBC and Amazon, starting with the 2025-26 season.

What do those two things have to do with each other, you ask?  Well, in the new NBA contract, NBC will have the rights to both the All-Star Game and All-Star Saturday Night.  NBC has also arranged its portion of the NFL contract to have Super Bowl rights in Winter Olympic years.  Which means in 2026, 2030 and (most likely) 2034, NBC will have two other major events right smack in the middle of the Winter Olympics (one of which will be in the U.S.!).  So, I'm very curious to see how they schedule everything on those couple of very busy Sundays in February (although, in 2002, they had both the Daytona 500 and NBA All-Star Game during the Winter Olympics, so they have done it before).

Back to the subject at hand, though--the two Winter Olympics.  The approval was always considered a mere formality after the IOC announced each as the "preferred candidate" as part of the new bidding process.  The vote was more of a rubber-stamping, but it did include provisions for each, so they aren't done deals yet. 

France can't sign the required governmental guarantees right now because of the political situation in the country and no actual ruling party at the moment.  Emmanuel Macron has assured the IOC that it'll be one of the first orders of business once the new French Prime Minister takes office, however.  They've only got five-and-a-half years to go, though, so they're already behind the 8-ball, and I'm not sure if there's any sort of Plan B should the IOC not get that government assurance.

The U.S., meanwhile, was basically told that it needs to stay in its lane and accept the fact that WADA has final authority over doping cases.  This was actually necessary since the USADA has had some very public tiffs with WADA, most recently about the Chinese swimmers who were allowed to compete in Tokyo (and will again in Paris) despite failed tests.  Not to mention the fact that the Rodchenkov Act, which somehow makes it a U.S. federal crime to dope in any international sporting event involving American athletes (even though the U.S. has absolutely no jurisdiction over international sports), is unenforceable and most likely makes the U.S. WADA non-compliant.  The USOPC has also given its assurance that it'll play by the rules and abide by WADA's decisions.  Whether the USADA (perhaps the most self-righteous organization in all of sports), FBI and Congress also will is a completely different question.

Assuming all of that is resolved, and there's no reason to think it won't be, it's now official that four of the next six Olympics (including the ongoing games in Paris) will be in either France or the United States, with stops in Italy and Australia mixed in.  After the struggles the IOC had in finding bidders for the past few Winter Olympics, they made a smart move and took the safe bets.  With the short turnaround before the 2030 Games, especially, they needed someone that can organize the Olympics quickly.  Which the French can.

Yes, two Olympics six years apart is quite a commitment, and it's one not every country is willing or able to make.  Japan decided against it, which is why the 2030 Olympics aren't in Sapporo, which was the longtime favorite until dropping out of the race.  The fact that France and the United States were not only in the financial position to do so, but wanted to host Summer and Winter Games so close together made the safe picks the easy ones.

Just as the Paris Games are using virtually all existing facilities, the 2030 Olympics will feature venues throughout the region that are regularly used for World Cup and World Championships competition.  This spread out, regional approach is similar to the one being used by Milan and Cortina in 2026, which, unfortunately, I think will be a way of life with most Winter Olympics in this new era of bidding.  These Games will be so spread out, in fact, that there are five different Olympic Villages in four zones.

When France last hosted the Winter Olympics in 1992, that was one of the big criticisms.  Albertville was the "host" city, but the venues were far apart and the athletes said it felt more like a bunch of individual World Championships rather than an Olympics.  Well, that's exactly what's in store again 5 1/2 years from now, when all three of the French Alpine cities that have previously hosted the Winter Olympics (Chamonix, Grenoble, Albertville) will host events, along with Nice on the Mediterranean coast for the ice sports.

In another nod to Paris and its Opening Ceremony down the Seine, the 2030 Closing Ceremony will be along Nice's famous Promenade des Anglais.  Interestingly, they haven't selected a site for the Opening Ceremony, though (in 1992, they built a temporary stadium just for the ceremonies).  Speed skating, which was famously held outdoors in 1992, will take place outside of France since there aren't any speed skating tracks in the country.  Turin isn't that far from the French border, so I'd imagine that the 2006 Olympic venue (which Milano Cortina didn't want to use) may end up getting pressed into action.  That would seem to make the most sense.

Salt Lake City, meanwhile, is ready to host another Winter Olympics tomorrow.  All of the venues from 2002 not only still exist, they're all still in use.  The USOPC moved pretty much all of its national training centers to the Olympic venues in Salt Lake City after the 2002 Games, and the area has become a premier winter sports destination.  The venues are all ready to go and will require little to no work (and the Delta Center's already being renovated to accommodate the NHL's arrival in Utah)...and they're all set to be used as Olympic venues again 32 years later.  

They're so ready, in fact, that they were willing to step in as hosts in 2030 should no other candidates emerge.  That was never really a viable option since it would've been too close to LA 2028.  Salt Lake 2034 always seemed like the smarter, more logical bet.  So, it wasn't a surprise that Salt Lake City was moved back to 2034 as the only candidate, making its selection a mere formality.

After two straight spread out, regional Winter Olympics (three if you count the mountain venues being 100 miles away from Beijing in 2022), it'll be just the opposite in Salt Lake City.  The 2034 Games promise to be one of the most compact Winter Olympics in history, with every venue located within an hour of the Olympic Village at the University of Utah.  The furthest is the biathlon/cross country course at Soldier Hollow, a whopping 53 miles outside the city.

Going back to Salt Lake City could be a bit of a palate cleanser for the IOC, too.  Their struggles with finding potential Winter Olympic hosts in recent cycles have been well-documented.  So well-documented, in fact, that there's been talk of establishing some sort of permanent rotation (which would almost certainly include Salt Lake City).  Now they're returning to the site of arguably the best, most well-run Winter Olympics ever.  Salt Lake 2002 was a prime example of how a Winter Olympics can be run successfully, and there's no reason to think Salt Lake 2034 won't do it again.

And maybe a second successful Salt Lake City Games is exactly what the Winter Olympics needs.  Especially after all of the upheaval and uncertainty surrounding the selections for the previous three editions, there's something reassuring about having a safe, solid, reliable option.  Which is exactly what they had in Salt Lake City.  And, who knows what'll happen in the next 10 years before Salt Lake 2034?  But maybe it'll be a chance for a much-needed reset.

Most importantly, we have Winter Olympic hosts for the next decade locked in.  That's perhaps the biggest takeaway from the IOC's announcement.  Seven years ago, they did a historic double awarding of 2024 and 2028 to France and the United States.  Now, on the eve of those Paris Games, they've done it again with the Winter Olympics, setting up four of the six Olympics over the next 10 years to be in the same two countries.  It was the smart thing to do then, and it was the smart thing to do again now, even if it does mean a lot of France and the United States in the coming years.

Needs at the 2024 Deadline

When the current MLB CBA went into effect for the 2022 season, they got rid of the second trade deadline and moved to a single deadline at the end of July.  They also expanded the postseason from 10 teams to 12 that year, which means a lot more teams are in contention (or at least think they are) at the end of July.  Which really limits what teams are selling and who's available.  Because of that, there's been some talk about moving the trade deadline later (pushing it back two weeks to mid-August would make sense). 

I'm sure that'll be a point of discussion in the next CBA negotiations, but for now, we've still got just the one deadline.  And this year, the number of sellers will definitely be low.  In the National League, only the Rockies and Marlins are truly out of it, while in the AL, it's just the White Sox, A's and Angels, as well as maybe the Blue Jays.  That's not a lot of teams to choose from.  So, if you're a buyer, you'd better strike early to fill your needs and get who you want.

Will some of those teams on the fringe stand pat or will they go for it?  Or will it be some sort of combination?  And what about the true World Series contenders?  What will they do?  Frankly, some of them don't need to do much.  And players coming back from injury could sure be a factor, too.

Last year's World Series was between two wild card teams, and one of them was an 84-win Diamondbacks squad that just got in as the 6-seed in the NL.  So, just getting into the field is the important part.  Then, anything can happen.  It still might not be enough for some of those teams, though.  Especially if the true World Series contenders address their needs.  Teams such as the...

Orioles: Baltimore's need for starting pitching is well-documented.  It's the main reason why they got swept by the Rangers in the Division Series last season.  They went out and traded for Corbin Burnes in the offseason and he's been great.  He started the All*Star Game.  But they could use another starter to put behind Burnes in their postseason rotation.

Yankees: This recent stretch of playing absolutely terrible baseball may have actually been somewhat of a good thing for the Yankees because it exposed their weaknesses.  They need an upgrade at third base.  DJ LeMahieu isn't getting the job done.  They also love their bullpen for some reason, but it's not as good as they think it is, and getting a real closer so that Clay Holmes can move into the setup role where he belongs probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

Guardians: People don't realize just how good Cleveland really is.  That doesn't mean the team is flawless, however.  Their lineup is very lefty-heavy, so they could use a right-handed bat to balance it out (to be fair, they have a bunch of switch-hitters).  I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a move for a starter, either.

Royals: What will the Royals do?  It's been a few years since they've been in this position, so they might as well go for it.  They don't need to disrupt their young core that figures to keep them competitive for a while, either.  I also don't think they need to touch their starting staff that's been surprisingly solid.  Where they do need help is in the bullpen, and that's something they can get without giving up too much.

Astros: Houston's in first place and is primed to make a run at its annual ALCS appearance.  The Astros are a very interesting team, though, because they have a lot of players on the injured list (four starting pitchers alone are on the 60-day IL).  If they're confident about getting any of them back this season, that's as good as a trade for a starter.  If they aren't, they'll definitely be in the market for another one.

Mariners: If the Mariners' free fall out of a double-digit division lead isn't an indication they need to make a move or two, I don't know what is.  Seattle can't stand pat and hope to catch Houston or hold off the other teams in the mix for the wild cards.  Pitching-wise, they're OK.  But they desperately need a right-handed bat, preferably one who plays first base since they have a void at that position now after releasing Ty France.

Phillies: Don't be surprised if the Phillies stand pat.  Because, frankly, they're the one team that doesn't need to do much.  They had five pitchers (including three starters) make the All*Star team, and that doesn't even include their ace Aaron Nola.  If I wanted to nitpick, I'd say maybe they can upgrade at second base or in center field, but that's really about it.

Braves: They already struck.  Because they needed to.  With Ronald Acuna, Jr., and now Ozzie Albies out, they brought in super utilityman Whit Merrifield to help fill the void left by those two big bats.  Don't be surprised if the Braves continue to be aggressive, either.  Being aggressive at the deadline is what won them the 2021 World Series, after all.

Brewers: Who knows what the Brewers will do?!  They could very well stand pat and end up winning the NL Central with the team they've got.  If they do that, though, they won't win in the playoffs.  Not against the Phillies or Dodgers.  I just don't know what type of deal they'd make.  Shore up the bullpen?  A low-risk, right-handed infielder like a Luis Rengifo?  I really have no idea!

Pirates: Raise your hand if you had Pittsburgh as a potential buyer instead of a seller at the deadline.  Whether the Pirates can sustain it for another two months is a different question entirely.  And will they be willing to risk any of their young core (and upsetting what they've got going) by making a trade deadline move or two?  If so, I can see them being in the market for a third starter behind Paul Skenes and Mitch Keller, as well as a right-handed setup compliment for Aroldis Chapman in front of their excellent closer, David Bednar.  A big bat sure wouldn't hurt, either.

Dodgers: Much like the Astros, the Dodgers have seemingly 35 starting pitchers on the roster, most of whom are on the IL.  I exaggerate, of course, but they're in a similar boat as Houston in that if they can get one or more of the starters back, that's as good as a trade.  If they can't, that'll definitely be an area of need they want to address.  They could also use a bullpen upgrade or two.  I'm not worried about their lineup since they mix-and-match guys already.

Padres: Trading your best player in the offseason, even if it is for the king's ransom San Diego got from the Yankees for Juan Soto, isn't usually a sign that a team is planning on contending that season.  Yet here the Padres are, right in the thick of it.  They still probably could use another starter and the bullpen's not super deep.  Lineup-wise, they're in great shape, though.  So, if they can strengthen their pitching, look out!

Carrying the Stars & Stripes

As we get ready for a one-of-a-kind Olympic Opening Ceremony down the Seine that promises to be spectacular on Friday, I'm still curious how the Parade of Nations is going to work.  All I've heard is that the athletes will be on a flotilla of boats traveling down the river before the formal portion of the ceremony takes place in front of the Eiffel Tower.  Nations have been announcing their flagbearers, though, which leads me to believe there will still be some sort of procession (I'm guessing it'll be into the "stadium" as they get off the boats).

And, unlike in Tokyo, countries can pick pretty much anybody to carry the flag.  With the COVID restrictions in place at the last Olympics, athletes were only allowed to arrive a few days before their event, which meant anybody whose competition wasn't until the second week couldn't even attend the Opening Ceremony!  That, fortunately, will not be the case this time (although, it'll be tough to pick a surfer since their competition is in Tahiti).  The selections aren't limited to those competing in the first few days.  Countries can choose anyone they want this time.

The United States has not yet announced the man and woman who'll have that honor.  It's obviously coming pretty soon, though.  On a team of nearly 600 athletes, there are plenty of candidates, although some are more realistic choices than others.  Here are five men and five women who I think should be in contention:

Brady Ellison, Archery: Fun fact: I watched Brady Ellison win silver at the Pan Am Games nine years ago while sitting behind his mom and grandma.  That's not why I think he should be in the mix to carry the flag, though.  He's the only man on the U.S. archery team, and Paris is his fifth Olympics.  Ellison has won three Olympic medals, including an individual bronze in Rio.

Steffen Peters, Equestrian: Steffen Peters will be 60 years old later this year.  His first Olympics was 28 years ago in Atlanta.  He won a bronze in team dressage there, then another in the same event 20 years later in Rio.  In Tokyo, the U.S. took silver, his third Olympic medal in team dressage.  These are his fifth Games.

Gerek Meinhardt, Fencing: Fencer Mariel Zagunis was the U.S. flagbearer the last time the Olympics were in Europe 12 years ago.  That was the second Olympics for Gerek Meinhardt.  The Paris Games will be his fifth.  He was just 18 when he made his Olympic debut in Beijing.  Now he's one of the senior members of the U.S. fencing team.  Meinhardt has two bronze medals in the men's foil team event from the Rio and Tokyo Games.

Vincent Hancock, Shooting: A three-time Olympic champion, he became the first skeet shooter to win back-to-back gold medals in 2008 and 2012.  He finished 15th in Rio, then made it three career Olympic golds in Tokyo.  This is his fifth trip to the Olympics.  He's won gold in three of the previous four.  Shooters don't often get the spotlight, so that's mostly gone unnoticed.  So why not give him some of the love he richly deserves by selecting him for the honor?

Ryan Crouser, Track & Field: There are a lot of members of the Olympic track & field team.  Any number of them have the stories, either actual or potential, that would make them worthy flagbearers.  But I'm going with Ryan Crouser, and just because he's the biggest (6'7, 320 lbs).  Crouser's won back-to-back golds in the shot put, setting the Olympic record in Tokyo (after breaking the world record at Trials) in honor of his grandfather, who had passed away earlier that year.  He's also his own coach and has paid it forward by coaching younger athletes. 

Diana Taurasi, Basketball: This one is admittedly somewhat unlikely since Sue Bird was the women's flagbearer in Tokyo.  Tauarsi's the one who stuck around for another Olympics, though, and she has a chance to set a record with a sixth gold medal in a team sport.  The women's basketball final is the day of the Closing Ceremony, so, should the U.S. win, maybe Taurasi carries the flag there instead?

Simone Biles, Gymnastics: Simone was the flagbearer at the Closing Ceremony in Rio, and her struggles in Tokyo were well-documented.  The fact that she's back is inspirational enough.  The fact that she's better than ever, at an age that's considered "old" for a gymnast, truly shows her greatness.  We know a lot of people will be watching for her, but that's not the reason why she'd be a great choice.  Everything else is.

Katie Ledecky, Swimming: I understand that the chances of this actually happening are slim to none.  The Opening Ceremony is on Friday night and she'll have both a prelim and the final in the 400 freestyle on Saturday.  But that doesn't change the fact that Ledecky, one of the U.S. swim team captains, would be deserving if selected.  Maybe in LA, when swimming and track & field are flipped?

Maggie Steffens, Water Polo: While somewhat underappreciated because it doesn't have anywhere near the exposure as some other sports, the U.S. women's water polo team has dominated Olympic competition for a decade.  They've won three straight gold medals, and team captain Maggie Steffens has been a big part of that.  She's the all-time leading goal scorer in Olympic history.

Helen Maroulis, Wrestling: In 2016, Helen Maroulis became the first American ever to win an Olympic gold medal in women's wrestling.  In 2021, she moved up in weight class and earned a bronze to become the first American female wrestler with two Olympic medals.  In 2024, she became the first American female wrestler to make three Olympic teams.  She's making history for the third straight Olympics, yet not a lot of people know about her.  Carrying the flag in Paris would certainly go a long way towards changing that.

Since three of the women I mentioned are competing on the opening weekend and may not even attend the Opening Ceremony, that really narrows it down to just Taurasi and Maroulis.  And, I know what I said about Bird carrying the flag in Tokyo.  It's not a rule that you can't have someone from the same sport twice in a row, though, which is exactly what I think will happen.

On the men's side, I'd love to see it be either Ellison or Hancock.  They're my two favorites among the five I listed.  Ellison will have actually already started competition before the Opening Ceremony (I have no idea why, but the fencing ranking round is on Thursday).  He has two days off after the Opening Ceremony, though, so he should be able to attend...especially if he's selected as the flagbearer.  And, for me, he gets the nod.

Who will it actually end up being?  I have absolutely no idea!  My correct guess of John Schuster and Elana Meyers Taylor for the 2022 Winter Games was probably blind luck more than anything else!  I wouldn't be upset if it is Taurasi and Ellison, though.  I think they would both make fine choices, should they get the nod.

And I Thought THIS July Was Busy!

We're now just a week away from the Paris Olympics, the first Games in eight years that will have a true "Olympic" feel.  More on that as the Games get closer and I go into full-blown Olympic mode (which should happen sometime this weekend).  But first (in my best Julie Chen Moonves voice), let's look ahead four years.  Because if you thought this summer was jam-packed with international sporting events, just wait until 2028!

The LA Olympics take place entirely within the month of July, and the July 14 Opening Ceremony is the earliest in modern Olympic history.  (The last Olympics held in the U.S., the 1996 Atlanta Games, started on July 19 and ended on August 4.)  That will create some scheduling complications for numerous events that typically run until mid-July, but will obviously have to make adjustments in 2028, whether that means ending earlier (before the Olympics begin) or starting later (after the Olympics end).

One event that should easily be able to make the adjustment is the Major League Baseball All*Star Game.  This year's game was a week later than usual.  It's normally the second Tuesday in July.  In 2028, it'll have to be, which actually works out well.  The second Tuesday in July is July 11, which is three days before the Olympic Opening Ceremony.  That shouldn't be a problem.  Although, with Olympic baseball being played at Dodger Stadium, I do wonder how long their road trip will be (and if the Angels will also have one).  In 1996, the Braves were on the road for the duration of the Olympics.

That's probably the only easy one, though.  As I noted during this year's U.S. Olympic Trials, the normal Trials schedule could work in 2028, but this year's Trials were designed to give them about a month before the Olympics...which would push them into early-to-mid-June rather than mid-to-late-June.  In track & field that could be problematic since the NCAA Championships are always the second weekend in June (two weeks after Memorial Day Weekend), and the Olympic Trials would have to be after that.  They could conceivably take place at the same time as this year, but that would have them ending only 10 days before the start of the Olympics.

So, what do you do?  If you move Trials up, the NCAA Championships would also have to be shifted (which would also shift up the NCAA Regionals and the various conference championships).  Leaving Trials at the same time seems like a logical option, especially since the Olympic qualifying period would likely end on July 3, the day after Trials end.  But that would mean that collegians could potentially have conference championships, Regionals, NCAA Championships, Olympic Trials and the Olympics all within a 10-week period. 

When the Track & Field Trials are scheduled will have a direct bearing on the Swimming Trials.  At the Olympics, swimming is usually first, so having the Swimming Trials first makes sense.  But, if they don't move the Track & Field Trials up, the Swimming Trials would have to stay in their same spot before track & field.  Which actually could be good.  Because Olympic swimming is being held at SoFi Stadium and they'll have to have an Olympic test event at SoFi sometime ahead of the Games.  That way, they could have Trials at SoFi and still have enough lead time to cover up the pools (which I'm sure they'd like to avoid installing twice) and get the stadium set up for the Opening Ceremony.

Schedule-wise, that seems to make the most sense.  Have the Swimming Trials in SoFi Stadium from June 17-25, then the Track & Field Trials from June 24-July 2.  Whether they're at the LA Coliseum (as they should be) or not, you keep the Track & Field Trials somewhere on the West Coast so that the athletes can just stay out there (especially if NCAAs are in Eugene as usual).

While figuring out the Olympic Trials schedule is up to the USOPC, USATF and USA Swimming (and, I'm sure, NBC), the early timing of the Olympics is just as problematic for plenty of other, international events that are mid-July staples.  Wimbledon, the British Open and the Tour de France will all have to make adjustments because of the early Olympics, which impacts the season-long schedules in those three sports.

I'll start with the British Open since that's the one that got me thinking about this and inspired today's post.  This is the British Open's regular weekend.  Always has been.  Except in 2028, this will be the opening weekend of the Olympics.  There's no way they'll have the two overlap.  So, it's either play the British Open a week earlier or play it immediately after the Olympics from August 3-6.

Option 2 certainly seems better and more likely.  If they play it before the Olympics, from July 6-9, that would put it only three weeks after the U.S. Open.  I know the PGA likes having the Majors relatively close together, but that seems a little too close.  Playing the British Open after would make it a five-week gap between the U.S. Open and Olympics (assuming the men's golf tournament is July 20-23), then two weeks between the Olympics and British Open.  That could work.

Playing the British Open before the Olympics, meanwhile, would overlap with Wimbledon.  Wimbledon typically ends on the second Sunday in July.  That actually won't be a problem in 2028 since it would put the Wimbledon gentlemen's final on July 9.  And that would actually create for a pretty awesome day in London since the final of Euro 2028 will be played at Wembley Stadium that night.

You'll notice I didn't include Euro 2028 on the list of events that will need to be adjusted.  That's because they've already announced the dates of the tournament: June 9-July 9.  The date of the final was almost certainly set because of the Olympics.  But it also means the Champions League Final can't be on the first Saturday in June like usual since that's less than a week before the start of the Euro.  (They haven't announced the dates of the 2028 Copa America, but I'm assuming that final will also be on July 9.)

Then there's the Tour de France.  This year, the route had to be adjusted because of the Olympics.  Instead of the traditional finish on the Champs Elysees, they moved the final stage to Nice so that Paris can prepare for the Olympics.  In 2028, the three-week race will need to push the start earlier, likely into mid-June, so that it can conclude on July 9.  Which will likely also push up the start of the Giro d'Italia, which is typically held in May/June.  Making those adjustments is easy enough that it shouldn't be a problem, especially since it wouldn't make sense to delay the Tour de France until August.

All of this will obviously be figured out.  They've got four years to do it.  (And, fortunately, this is nothing like the COVID-related adjustments in 2020-21.)  But it's still interesting to think about the ripple effect that the early dates of the 2028 Olympics will have across the board (I didn't even mention the NBA or WNBA, either, but they'll both be impacted, as well.), and the solutions they'll come up with.

Lamenting Local Rights

It's rare that I agree with Knicks owner Jim Dolan.  This is one of those times.  Dolan is not a fan of the NBA's new media rights deal with ESPN/ABC, NBC and Amazon, which is all but finalized.  He's so against it, in fact, that he sent a letter to the NBA Board of Governors and the other 29 owners criticizing the deal and the league's business model.  And, frankly, he's got a point!

The new contract is for 11 years and $76 billion starting with the 2025-26 season.  Notably absent is Turner Sports, the NBA's longtime TV partner, which has an option to match that it will reportedly be exercising.  Whether that will actually make a difference is anyone's guess, but the impression I've gotten is that it won't.

Under the new deal, each network will have an exclusive national window...and each will have their own night of the week.  ESPN would keep its Wednesday and Friday blocks, as well as the Saturday night window on ABC.  NBC will get Sunday nights after football season ends to go along with a Monday night package on Peacock.  Amazon Prime will also have the NBA take its football spot after the NFL season is over, streaming games on Thursday nights and getting exclusive rights to the NBA Cup.

One of Commissioner Adam Silver's main priorities with the new contract was to increase the NBA's exposure on streaming platforms...which is something that he certainly accomplished.  However, the increase in the number of exclusive national windows, as well as a team's maximum number of national television appearances are what really irk Dolan.  Under the new deal, the maximum number of national appearances will go from 12 per team to 18.  That's roughly a quarter of their schedule.  Or, as Dolan sees it, six fewer games for teams to air on their own regional sports networks.

As streaming has become more and more prominent, regional sports networks have suffered the most.  We've already seen it in baseball, where MLB had to take over the local broadcasts for the Padres and Diamondbacks because of Bally Sports' bankruptcy.  RSNs have already seen a massive reduction in revenue as cord-cutters ditch the traditional cable bundle, but still have some value as the broadcaster for the majority of the local team's games.  The fewer games available to them, though, the lower the value, while they'll still have to pay rights fees while not bringing in as much revenue (both from reduced cable subscriber fees and fewer sponsorship dollars).

In addition to the Knicks and Rangers, Dolan owns MSG Network, which broadcasts both teams' games (as well as the Devils and Islanders).  The Knicks and Lakers, who (obviously) play in the two largest markets in the league, have the highest local TV ratings in the league.  They also generate the most revenue from local broadcasts.  Both teams reportedly earned $3 million per game this season.  So, shifting six games from the local broadcasters to the national TV partners, that's a loss of nearly $20 million per season.

Dolan, understandably, considers the new TV deal a threat to the RSN model.  In his email, he even argues that it could make the RSN model unsustainable.  With the inclusion of streaming partners (and no blackouts), fans would potentially have the option of completely bypassing their local broadcast while still being able to see the game.  While the NBA counters this next point, he also argues that the new deal offers no protection for RSNs and that the league has no plan for a comparable replacement should one become necessary.

Another big issue that Dolan has regarding the new TV contract is the revenue sharing element.  Dolan is very critical of this aspect.  Teams like the Knicks and Lakers generate the most revenue locally, but they wouldn't get to keep it since the league would pool all teams' revenue and redistribute it equally.  If that sounds similar to the NFL's model, it should.  Because that's exactly what the NBA is going for.

There's one major difference between the NFL and the NBA, though.  Since 1961, the NFL has had a federal antitrust exemption that allows the league to negotiate a broadcast package on behalf of all teams collectively.  That antitrust exemption also requires all games to be available free over-the-air in the participating teams' local markets.  That rule still applies, so Monday and Thursday night games are on a local broadcaster, as well as ESPN or Amazon Prime (or Peacock or Netflix or NFL Network).  

More significantly, every NFL game is nationally televised.  The only exception is the preseason, where games that aren't nationally televised are produced by the teams themselves.  So, at most, teams will have three preseason games broadcast only locally and that's it.

That's only the case in the NFL.  In the NBA, NHL and MLB, a majority of a team's regular season games are broadcast locally in a deal that's negotiated directly between the team and their TV partner.  All of the deals are different, but the important thing to note is that while the local broadcasts are the team's responsibility, they also get to keep all the revenue.  So, Jim Dolan stands to lose a lot of money should the NBA's local TV revenue suddenly be pooled.

While the Knicks and Lakers stand out as the two teams that would be the most significantly impacted, Dolan said that the other owners should still consider how it will affect their franchise, particularly as it pertains to local revenue.  That seems to be the crux of his argument.  Not only will he stand to make less money under the new TV deal, the Knicks would also generate less since there wouldn't be as much coming in from local sponsorships...a situation that would be the same for every team since they'd all have less inventory to offer.

He accused the NBA of greed since a majority of the money in the new TV contract will be kept by the league (although, the NBA disputes his figures).  Dolan also claims that the league and other owners don't care since franchise values will continue to rise.  A very sarcastic (and true) point Dolan made in his letter was that the NBA is deemphasizing and depowering the local market and suggested that teams' only concerns will be ticket sales and the color of next season's jersey, since they'll be guaranteed to make money either way.

Ultimately, nothing will come of Dolan's legitimate concerns.  They've been working on the new media rights deal for too long, and too many owners are aligned with Silver to go against what he wants.  Dolan did make some good points, though.  Hopefully the other owners realize that before it's too late.

Midseason MLB Superlatives

Baseball season has reached the All*Star Break.  There have been some surprises, but the teams at the top of the standings aren't that unexpected.  And we have about 20 teams who think they have a realistic shot at the playoffs, which should make for an interesting trade deadline.  That's for later in the month, though.  Right now, let's focus on who'd receive the major awards for the first half of the season.

AL MVP: Aaron Judge, Yankees-Imagine where the Yankees would be without Aaron Judge!  His first half numbers this season are better than they were two years ago, when he hit an AL-record 62 home runs.  You could make an argument for Gunnar Henderson, Bobby Witt Jr., or even Juan Soto, but there's no denying that Aaron Judge is on pace for another record-breaking year.  That's why I think he has a slight edge over the others.  Because, again, imagine the Yankees without him.

AL Cy Young: Tarik Skubal, Tigers-The names in the mix for AL Cy Young at midseason certainly aren't those you would've expected.  Take the Tigers' Tarik Skubal, who I'd argue is the current favorite.  His career record entering this season was 23-27.  This year, he's 10-3.  He leads the AL in ERA and WHIP, is second in batting average against, and third in both wins and strikeouts.  So, yeah, he's been good.

AL Rookie: Ceddanne Rafaela, Red Sox-Boston hasn't quite taken the Houston/Baltimore approach of completely tanking just to stockpile high draft picks, but there's no denying that the Red Sox have developed some really good young talent.  Ceddanne Rafaela is one of them.  He's been excellent in both center field and at shortstop, and he's the most productive No. 9 hitter in baseball.  Rafaela is either first or second among AL rookies in virtually every offensive category.

AL Manager: Stephen Vogt, Guardians-Stephen Vogt retired as a player after the 2022 season.  He then spent one year as a coach in Seattle before taking over in Cleveland, his first managerial job at any level.  All he's done so far is lead the Guardians to the best record in the American League at the break.

AL Comeback Player: Carlos Rodon, Yankees-Remember how bad Carlos Rodon was last year?  This season, he's certainly had his moments.  But, more often, he's looked like the pitcher that the Yankees spent all that money on.  Especially in April and May, there was talk of Rodon being on the All*Star team.  That obviously didn't happen, but his bounce back season may prove that his contract might not have been a huge bust after all.

NL MVP: Shohei Ohtani, Dodgers-Switching leagues has done nothing to affect Shohei Ohtani's brilliance.  If anything, being in a lineup with Mookie Betts and Freddie Freeman has made him more productive!  He's leading the National League in hits, homers and runs scored, all by a wide margin.  If Ohtani's second half is anything like his first half, he's well on his way to a third career MVP award.  This time, though, he'll also get to play in October.

NL Cy Young: Zack Wheeler, Phillies-There are any number of candidates for the NL Cy Young right now.  But I'm going with the best pitcher on the best team.  Wheeler's second in the National League in ERA, has a WHIP below 1.00 and is holding his opponents to a .192 batting average.  He's also got more than a strikeout an inning.  The Phillies are 11-8 in his starts (Wheeler is 10-4), but two of those losses were in 10 innings, and one of them was 1-0!

NL Rookie: Jackson Merrill, Padres-Paul Skenes has been a sensation, will start the All*Star Game, and could very well end up being named NL Rookie of the Year.  At the break, though, I'm giving the edge to the Padres' Jackson Merrill, a converted infielder turned All*Star center fielder.  He leads all National League rookies in hits, home runs and RBIs, and he's second among NL rookies in batting average.

NL Manager: Pat Murphy, Brewers-People expected the Phillies, Dodgers and Braves to be good.  Very few people thought the Brewers would be leading the Central, though.  Especially after Craig Counsell left Milwaukee for the division rival Cubs.  The Cubs are currently in last place.  The Brewers, meanwhile, have the third-best record in the NL behind new manager Pat Murphy.

NL Comeback Player: Chris Sale, Braves-As it turns out, all he needed was to get out of Boston!  Because the Chris Sale who pitches for the Braves looks like the Chris Sale who pitched for the White Sox.  He's 35 years old and pitching in the National League for the first time in his career, but you sure wouldn't know it.  If the rotation had allowed for it, it would've been easy to envision him starting for the National League on Tuesday night.

For all the good, there's also been plenty of bad.  And I'm not just talking about the Yankees in April and May compared to the Yankees in June and July.  I'm talking about the players who've been truly bad.  So bad, in fact, that they've earned first half accolades of their own.

AL LVP: Jose Abreu, Astros-Abreu actually had some competition here from DJ LeMahieu and Kevin Kiermaier.  His season was far worse than either of theirs, however.  So bad, in fact, that it saw him get sent down at the end of April before he was released in mid-June.  It looks like Abreu's age caught up with him.  In 35 games, he hit a whopping .124 with two homers and seven RBIs.  Quite a fall for a guy who was still pretty productive as recently as last season's playoffs.

AL Cy Old: Griffin Canning, Angels-For some reason, the Angels insist on sending Griffin Canning out there.  I can't begin to guess why.  He's 3-9.  He has the second-worst ERA among qualified AL pitchers.  His WHIP and batting average against are both among the worst in the American League.  He's given up 18 home runs in 19 starts.  He only strikes out just over six hitters per nine innings.  I know he isn't the reason the Angels suck, but he's not exactly helping, either.

NL LVP: Tim Anderson, Marlins-It wasn't too long ago that Tim Anderson was really good.  He certainly fell off the cliff very rapidly.  The Marlins took a flier on Anderson after the White Sox declined his option, but he was just as bad in Miami.  After 65 games with a .214 average, no home runs and just nine RBIs, he was designated for assignment and ultimately released on July 5.

NL Cy Old: Patrick Corbin, Nationals-Washington isn't very good.  I get that.  And because the team isn't very good, Nationals pitchers will take a lot of losses.  I get that, too.  But Patrick Corbin's 1-9 record isn't the reason why he gets the nod here.  It's his .305 batting average against, 1.54 WHIP and 5.57 ERA, all of which are the worst in the National League.  I do give him credit for going out there every five days and taking his lumps, though.

Mostly Live From Paris

I always find it funny when people don't care about something at all when it's announced, then have all kinds of things to say about it weeks or even months later after they suddenly decide they care.  NBC announced its primary broadcast strategy for the Paris Olympics more than a year ago--with the Games in Europe, live coverage all morning and afternoon, with a "reimagined" primetime show featuring highlights and replays (I don't know why this bears repeating every time there's a European Olympics, but live coverage during primetime is not possible because of the time difference).

Anyway, NBC unveiled its detailed daily schedule for the entire Olympics (which is, of course, subject to change), and it inevitably drew a share of derisive articles mockingly congratulating NBC for not showing the Olympics "plausibly live" (aka, on tape delay).  While I get that the interest has only increased over the past few weeks as the Olympics get closer, that's not exactly breaking news.  It's also not something new.  The last three Olympics were in Asia, so it's easy to forget, but NBC made the move to mostly-live in 2016 (when the Games were in Rio, which is only an hour ahead of the East Coast).  And they started showing the Opening Ceremony live in Tokyo.  The only real difference here is that this Olympics is in Europe.

It's been 10 years since the last European Olympics.  A lot has changed between then and now.  (For starters, the 2014 Winter Games were IN Russia, now Russia isn't even allowed to compete!)  In this era of streaming (with every event available on Peacock and NBCOlympics.com), NBC knows they have to make everything available live.  Which is something they started doing even when they were "holding" events for broadcast later.  In 2014, they showed the figure skating live during the day on NBC Sports Network before airing it again on tape-delay in primetime.

At the last three Olympics, the time difference was a major issue.  Since Asia has reverse time zones, they were able to show stuff live in the U.S. during primetime because it was the next morning.  The daytime show had to be on tape delay, though, because they didn't have a choice.  It was the middle of the night!  (And, for the record, they did show it all live on cable.)

Also, I hate to burst this bubble, but there will still be tape-delayed events during NBC's coverage of the Paris Games (and not just on the primetime and late night shows).  There was never not going to be!  They can only show one event at a time, and there's stuff that'll be live on cable while something else is on NBC, then shown again on NBC after that other event is over.

Even before they announced the detailed schedule, it was easy to anticipate that they'd tape delay some stuff.  The morning sessions in swimming start at 5 a.m. Eastern each day.  NBC's daytime block isn't starting until 9 a.m. after the Today Show.  The swimming finals will be shown live at 2:30 p.m.  They have to show that day's prelims sometime before the finals, which means they're getting shown on tape delay sometime between 9-2:30.

There's also an advantage to tape-delayed coverage that the critics like to ignore.  It can be edited.  When you're broadcasting live, there's a lot of down time you need to fill.  Yes, that can be the perfect time for one of NBC's sappy athlete profile pieces or to swing over and check out another event.  But how often is that filler exactly that?  Trying to fill time before the next heat.  If you're on tape delay, though, you can cut all of that dead time out and just make it look like it went right from one heat to the next.

Swimming morning sessions can also get incredibly long, with multiple unseeded heats between swimmers who have absolutely no shot of advancing to the semifinals.  By tape delaying the morning swimming sessions, they'll be able to cut out those unseeded heats and only show the three or four relevant seeded heats of each race.  It makes for a much more manageable time frame.

NBC is primarily using the broadcast network for its linear coverage from Paris.  That means all of the marquee events will be on NBC.  Except they can only show one thing at a time.  So, if there are two events that they want to show happening simultaneously, one will have to be tape delayed.  That's just a simple fact.

USA, meanwhile, will be the primary cable home and have 24-hour coverage.  That, obviously, means not everything on USA will be live, either!  USA's primetime schedule during the Olympics, in fact, will be mainly replays of one of the American teams in a team sport...and they'll continue to replay stuff until 4/5 a.m. when the first events of the next day get underway!  And some of the stuff that airs on USA during those early-morning hours will be shown again on NBC once their coverage window begins.

The big difference here, really, is that this is the first Olympics taking place in Europe since NBC moved to the primarily live strategy.  In London (when they showed plenty of live events during the day, just like they will in Paris) and Sochi, it was still the old way, when tape delay was more accepted (even though they drew plenty of criticism for it then, too).  So, yes, this will be a different experience.  But is it, really?

This year's Olympic broadcast schedule isn't all that dissimilar than what NBC did 12 years ago in London.  In 2012, they had Dan Patrick & Al Michaels tag-teaming daytime coverage...which was all live.  As was the morning coverage.  And primetime, again, has to be tape delayed when the Olympics are in Europe.  The main difference between now and the London Games is that the marquee events will end up being on NBC twice...once live during the day, then again on tape delay during primetime.

In the past, their focus was on the primetime show, which is why they held events to be shown then.  That strategy has shifted.  In 2018, NBC started airing the East Coast primetime show live across the country.  This year, it won't be (because there's no need), but the afternoon show is.  Today will be on at its normal time everywhere, though, so the Mountain and Pacific time zones will join in progress, then get an extra hour (Mountain) or three hours (Pacific) tacked on at the end.  That will all be on tape delay (the day's events will be over by then).

Now, the emphasis is more on the live coverage, which seems to be what people want.  I'm actually very curious to see how this strategy works out.  Will people still tune into the primetime show knowing it will be vastly different than what they're used to?  I don't even know what to expect in primetime!  What I do know, though, is that the daytime show will be the focus in a way it never has before.

European Olympics are unique in that everything is done by 7 p.m. Eastern.  Four years from now, it'll be vastly different.  LA is, obviously, three hours behind the East Coast, so the Olympic day won't even get started until about 10-11 a.m. Eastern, and the primetime show will be almost entirely live.  So will the late night show for that matter!  Then the Olympics are in Brisbane, which is essentially another Games in Asia time-difference-wise.  So, NBC's programming strategy for Paris, whether it's successful or not, will be very different than its programming strategy for LA.

Americans have gotten used to watching sporting events from Europe live during the morning and afternoon.  NBC is aware of that, and aware of the general attitude that people would rather watch something live than on tape delay.  So, in Paris, that's exactly what they'll do.  For the most part.  Completely live was never going to happen...and that's OK!  Because NBC is giving people what they want with its mostly-live Olympic coverage from Paris.

NBA Expansion Candidates

The NBA's new TV contract is finally all but signed, sealed and delivered.  We've long known the basics.  ESPN/ABC will remain the league's primary TV partner, but have fewer games in the new package, which sees NBC return to the fold and Amazon Prime join as a third partner.  TNT has had the NBA for years, but will be out unless it exercises its option to match one of the other bids (which doesn't seem likely).

What we didn't know was the value and length of the deal.  Well, it's an 11-year, $76 billion contract that will begin with the 2025-26 season.  And, with that all locked in and the NBA's financial status for the next decade now clear, the salary cap should see healthy annual increases.  The NBA can now also move on to other priorities, the biggest of which is expansion.

Expansion has been on the NBA's radar for a while.  Adam Silver hasn't been shy about the league's desire to expand, but didn't want to do anything until the media rights deal was signed.  Now that it is, I wouldn't be surprised if we hear about NBA expansion being a go pretty soon.  Silver has even mentioned potential candidates, two of which are incredibly obvious.

Las Vegas.  For a long time, it looked like the NBA would be the first major league to put a team in Las Vegas.  That honor went to the NHL instead, and I think it's safe to say the Golden Knights have been a resounding success.  They've since been joined by the Raiders, with the A's heading there in 2028.  And let's not forget the Las Vegas Aces, the two-time defending WNBA champions.  It's the NBA on the outside looking in.

That initial hesitancy about placing a team in Las Vegas has long since faded.  And you know they played the semifinals and final of the NBA Cup at T-Mobile Arena for a reason.  The NBA knows the golden opportunity staring them in the face.  It would be a shock if an NBA expansion team is placed anywhere but Las Vegas.

Seattle.  Likewise, it would be shocking if the other expansion team wasn't placed in Seattle.  It's still kind of raw for fans in the city that the Sonics, one of the NBA's first expansion teams in 1967, moved to Oklahoma City.  It's also crazy to think that was 16 years ago!  People have been waiting for the Sonics to return pretty much since they left, and this is the NBA's chance to follow through.

One of the main reasons the Sonics moved (arguably the main reason) was their arena.  They needed a new one, but couldn't get the funding for it.  That's no longer an issue.  Their old arena was torn down and completely rebuilt for the Kraken, and the Storm also play at Climate Pledge Arena.  Returning to Seattle would give the NBA a chance to right what many still perceive as a wrong.  And they know that the fanbase is there to support a revived Sonics franchise, as well.

Are Las Vegas and Seattle the obvious, safe options?  Yes.  But there's a reason for that.  And, yes, the NHL just expanded to both Las Vegas and Seattle within the last decade, so the NHL would essentially be "copying" them.  They're also the most logical choices, though, which is why they seem to be the most likely.  For argument's sake, though, let's assume they aren't locks.  What other cities could be under consideration?

Kansas City.  Kansas City built a downtown arena that opened in 2007, hoping to lure either an NBA or NHL team.  That obviously hasn't happened yet, but it does regularly host the Big 12 Tournament and NCAA Tournament.  Kansas City does have a history with the NBA, though.  The Kings played there for 14 years (splitting home games with Omaha for part of that time) before moving to Sacramento.

St. Louis.  If not Kansas City, why not go to the other side of Missouri in St. Louis?  St. Louis also has a history with the NBA as the former home of the Hawks, and the St. Louis Spirits were one of only two ABA teams still existing at the time of the merger that didn't join the NBA (although, their owners got a share of the TV revenue until 2014).  The Blues' arena, the Enterprise Center, hosts the Missouri Valley Conference Tournament every year.

Montreal.  I've seen some suggestions that the NBA might want to go to an international destination with an expansion team.  Why not place a second team in Canada, then, and place a team in Montreal?  They'd have a natural rival in Toronto, and you know they'd automatically dislike the Celtics, too.  The Bell Centre has the largest seating capacity in the NHL and can seat over 22,000 for basketball.

Vancouver.  Or, if you want a second Canadian team, how about trying again in Vancouver?  The Grizzlies didn't work there for a lot of reasons, but it could certainly be worth trying again.  Although, if you're bringing back the Sonics, would you want your other expansion team to be so close?  Especially since the Sonics would be reviving their rivalry with the Blazers, so it wouldn't exactly be Canucks-Kraken.

Mexico City.  Adam Silver has specifically mentioned Mexico City in the past.  It would definitely be bold.  It would make the NBA the first American pro league to establish a franchise South of the border, so this time they'd be the first league looking to establish a permanent hold in a vast, untapped market (the NFL and MLB have both played regular season games in Mexico City).  Would it be too bold of a move, though?

You could also make an argument for a city like Nashville or even a Louisville, but, really, the two obvious candidates are obvious for a reason.  The NBA could announce it's expanding tomorrow and Las Vegas and Seattle would be ready to welcome teams in 2025-26.  When/if the NBA expands, it would be shocking if it's to anywhere other than those two cities.

It's Not Better

Every Olympic year, when someone doesn't make the team at the Track & Field Trials, the critics come out, taking issue with the cutthroat selection method where the top three make the team and that's it (that's not always the case, but for the sake of this discussion, let's say it is).  Either perform on the day or you don't make the team.  It's unambiguous and straightforward.  There's no controversy surrounding the selections.  

That hasn't stopped those critics from calling the system "unfair" to potential Olympic medalists who end up getting left home.  Of course, I'd counter that argument with the fact that that's the entire point!  Everyone has an equal chance of making the team.  Letting the athletes decide the team themselves is actually the fairest method possible, especially since there are so many events where the U.S. has more than three athletes with the Olympic standard, making it impossible to choose otherwise.

While a vast majority of people agree that the selection process at the U.S. Olympic Track & Field Trials works perfectly and doesn't need to be changed, there will always be those calls to tweak the system.  The most common preference I've seen among those who favor a change would be doing something similar to what they do in Great Britain.  The top two finishers at the British Trials automatically make the team, while the third spot is decided by a selection committee.  A system that is ripe for controversy!

This year's British Olympic track & field team selection is all the proof you need that their system is, in fact, not better.  Because there were plenty of questionable choices (and non-choices) by the selection committee.  That ambiguity does not exist at the U.S. Trials, where the subjectivity is taken out of it.

The British team was announced last week, and UK Athletics has been under fire pretty much ever since.  The athletes themselves have been among the most vocal is their displeasure with how everything went down.  Actually, "disgust" is probably more appropriate than "displeasure."  Some of those athletes who've been screwed over have opted to retire rather than represent Great Britian, while others have encouraged those athletes who can to switch their allegiance to another country.  Still others have said they're "ashamed" to represent British Athletics after this fiasco.

Countries are limited to three entrants per event in Olympic track & field, provided they meet the qualifying criteria.  World Athletics has a target number of athletes for each event.  Roughly half the field is made up of those with the Olympic qualifying standard (which grants an athlete automatic entry as long as they're selected by their nation), with the rest of the field filled based on the world rankings.  The qualification period ended on June 30 (which was the last day of the U.S. Olympic Trials), after which nations and athletes knew whose world rankings were high enough to earn an Olympic place.

World Athletics purposely made the Olympic standard tougher for the Paris Games than it did for Tokyo because they didn't want the whole field to only be athletes with the standard.  They wanted the world rankings to come into play.  UK Athletics, however, had its own standard for making the Olympics, which, for some reason, was actually harder than the one set by World Athletics.  As a result, some British athletes who had the Olympic standard were left off the team because they didn't meet the arbitrary harder British standard.

It's worth noting here that we aren't talking about events where more than three Brits had the World Athletics standard, either.  Discus thrower Jade Lally would be in based on her world ranking, but isn't going to Paris because she didn't meet the British selection criteria.  Instead, Great Britain won't be entering anybody in the event.  Same thing in the men's steeplechase, where both Phil Norman and Zak Seddon would've made it, yet neither was chosen (for the same reason as Lally, because they didn't meet the standard set by UK Athletics).

They did it the other way, too.  Jake Wightman, the 2022 World champion in the men's 1500 meters, withdrew from the British Trials with an injury.  That didn't stop them from naming him to the team in the 800 (at the expense of third-place finisher Elliot Giles).  Even Wightman described the selection as throwing him a "lifeline."  

UK Athletics has been on the defensive since the team for Paris was announced, and UK Athletics Chair Ian Beattie published an article where he tried to justify the federation's reasoning.  His explanation, frankly, rings hollow.  The argument he made was essentially, these athletes have little to no chance at making the final in their event, so why bother?  He talked about "inspiring the nation" and said those athletes wouldn't do that.  He also claims that a larger team can "dilute the level of support given to our genuine medal contenders" and that it could have a demotivational effect.  Maybe he can explain to me how someone not making the women's discus final has any impact on the men's 1500-meter runners.  Because I don't get that thought process at all!

Great Britain only wants athletes who are capable of making the final and placing in the top eight.  This isn't me saying this.  Beattie point blank said it in his attempt to justify their position.  If they don't feel an athlete can make the top eight, they didn't select them for the team.  

On some level, you have to applaud them for wanting to send the best, most competitive team possible.  But their selection process is highly questionable.  These athletes are otherwise qualified according to the sport's international federation, only for their own national federation to say that isn't good enough.  That line of thinking is completely backwards!  You should want to send the largest team possible to a global championship.  At the very least, you shouldn't be intentionally making your team smaller by leaving qualified athletes home.

Those athletes who weren't chosen because of the UK Athletics criteria are understandably (and justifiably) angry about it.  Norman, who was just 0.15 seconds off the UK Athletics standard, called them out for essentially saying he's "not good enough."  Lally, meanwhile, had the best mark by a British women's discus thrower in 40 years, but fell 5 centimeters short of the country's standard, so she got left home, too, a decision that she described as "killing" the sport.

Some people would still probably argue that they prefer the British system.  If you were to ask the Brits, though, they'd most likely say that they like the American way better.  It's not arbitrary and it takes the politics out of it.  Most importantly, there's no controversy around it.  No one has to answer questions why certain athletes made it while others didn't or justify the process.  You either make the team or you don't.  It's plain and simple.  And it's all up to you.

2024 Joe Brackets All*Stars

I must admit, the current system of MLB All*Star voting has grown on me.  Ever since they introduced it a couple years ago (I think it was 2021 when they came back from the COVID cancellation in 2020), I've grown to like it more and more.  One of things I like the best is how, for the most part, the fans get it right now.  There are far fewer questionable starters who only got voted in because fans of their team just voted for everybody whether they deserved it or not.  Now, people actually need to pay attention, and the player who should be starting at his position usually ends up doing so.

Another thing that I like about it is how we know the starters ahead of time.  They always do that in the NHL and NBA, but MLB always made us wait until the entire team was announced, and that sometimes made it hard to pick the rest of the All*Stars because an undeserving starter might've swept in to take somebody else's spot.  That's no longer an issue.  Now, we know the starters ahead of time and have a few days to figure out the reserves based on that.

We're also getting a lot more variety in the selection of All*Star starters.  Of the 18 players chosen to start by the fans last season, only two of them won the fan vote again this year.  And Shohei Otani, of course, switched leagues, so Aaron Judge was the only player to be voted in representing the same league both years.  (Judge missed last year's All*Star Game due to injury, so Ohtani will be the only player who actually started in 2023 to start again in 2024, and both lineups will feature nine different starters than last season.)

Last year, the AL starting lineup was dominated by Texas Rangers.  They went on to win the World Series, which means they'll be represented this year by manager Bruce Bochy.  And, with this year's game in Arlington, he'll become the first manager to manage the All*Star Game in his home park since Bobby Cox in 2000.  As for the number of Rangers players who'll join him, I don't think that number will be too high.

And, I must say, the All*Star Game uniforms have got to go!  I know they won't because it was Nike's new thing that they introduced in 2021, and it's basically MLB's version of the City Connect (you know my feelings on those!), but this year's are particularly awful!  At the very least, can we go back to the old way where they wear their league uniforms for the Workout Day and Home Run Derby on Monday and their team uniforms in the All*Star Game itself?

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest!  This year's NL uniforms are far less bad, but I feel bad for whoever makes the AL squad has to wear those monstrosities straight out of the mid-80s (kind of like the Padres' City Connects!).  And that should be a lot of Baltimore Orioles.  With good reason.  They've got Rutschman and Henderson each making the first of what should be many All*Star starts, and they'll figure to have a few teammates join them.

The AL roster, in fact, should feature several teams with multiple All*Stars.  That's more a consequence of there being several really bad AL teams than anything else.  As a result, I think there will be a higher amount of token team reps than usual.  Which is bad news for some potential All*Stars (especially pitchers) who'll end up not being selected because they had to be bumped for an Angel, White Sok or A.

In the National League, it may be a similar situation, although not as bad.  We've already got 3/4 of the Phillies infield and 2/3 of the Padres outfield, and I would imagine Jackson Merrill will make it 3-out-of-3.  Those two and the Dodgers should make up the bulk of the multi-All*Star teams.  So, with all that in mind, I present the 2024 Joe Brackets MLB All*Stars...

NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *William Contreras (MIL), Will Smith (LAD)
1B: *Bryce Harper (PHI), Freddie Freeman (LAD)
2B: *Ketel Marte (ARZ), Luis Arraez (SD)
SS: *Trea Turner (PHI), Elly de la Cruz (CIN), Francisco Lindor (NYM)
3B: *Alec Bohm (PHI), Ryan McMahon (COL), Matt Chapman (SF)
OF: *Christian Yelich (MIL), *Jurickson Profar (SD), *Fernando Tatis Jr. (SD), Teoscar Hernandez (LAD), Bryan Reynolds (PIT), Jackson Merrill (SD)
DH: *Shohei Ohtani (LAD), Marcell Ozuna (ATL)
P: Raisel Iglesias (ATL), Chris Sale (ATL), Shota Imanaga (CHC), Tyler Glasnow (LAD), Gavin Stone (LAD), Tanner Scott (MIA), Ranger Suarez (PHI), Paul Skenes (PIT), Robert Suarez (SD), Sonny Gray (STL), Ryan Helsley (STL), Dylan Floro (WSH)

AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: *Adley Rutschman (BAL), Salvador Perez (KC)
1B: *Vladimir Guerrero Jr. (TOR), Josh Naylor (CLE), Yandy Diaz (TB)
2B: *Jose Altuve (HOU), Marcus Semien (TEX)
SS: *Gunnar Henderson (BAL), Bobby Witt Jr. (KC)
3B: *Jose Ramirez (CLE), Jordan Westburg (BAL), Rafael Devers (BOS)
OF: *Aaron Judge (NYY), *Juan Soto (NYY), *Steven Kwan (CLE), Jarren Duran (BOS), Riley Greene (DET), Willi Castro (MIN)
DH: *Yordan Alvarez (HOU), Ryan O'Hearn (BAL)
P: Corbin Burnes (BAL), Craig Kimbrel (BAL), Garrett Crochet (CWS), Tanner Bibee (CLE), Emmanuel Clase (CLE), Tarik Skubal (DET), Ronel Blanco (HOU), Seth Lugo (KC), Carlos Estevez (LAA), Clay Holmes (NYY), Mason Miller (OAK), Andres Munoz (SEA)

During the starters announcement on ESPN, they had a rather lively debate about how the lineups should be constructed.  It really is hard to go wrong in the All*Star Game, but it is valid.  Does the NL have Ohtani lead off?  Talk about a way to start the All*Star Game!  (In 1981, Pete Rose insisted on leading off for the National League so that he'd be the first batter after the strike.)  And does the AL go with their old standby Jose Altuve or reward Gunnar Henderson for the first half he's put together?

Here's how I think Torey Lovullo and Bruce Bochy should make out their lineup cards...
NL: Marte-2B, Ohtani-DH, Harper-1B, Bohm-3B, Tatis-RF, Yelich-CF, Contreras-C, Profar-LF, Turner-SS
AL: Altuve-2B, Soto-RF, Judge-CF, Guerrero-1B, Ramirez-3B, Rutschman-C, Alvarez-DH, Henderson-SS, Kwan-LF

As for the starting pitchers, so much more always goes into that discussion.  It's not just performance taken into account, but when they last pitched, their turn in the rotation, whether their team wants them to throw, etc.  Last year, we ended up with two good choices in Gerrit Cole and Zac Gallen.  I don't think there's an obvious starter on either side, but both managers have a pair of good options to choose between.

In the NL, I've got it down to Chris Sale and Paul Skenes.  It turns out Sale just needed to get out of Boston!  His career has been revived in Atlanta, and he's probably the leading candidate for NL Comeback Player of the Year.  But Skenes has been nothing short of electrifying since his call-up in May.  The No. 1 overall pick last year is much more than Livvie Dunne's boyfriend.  His All*Star selection will be well-deserved and, should he start, it would be warranted.

If you'd asked me in May who the AL's starting pitcher would be, I would've said another rookie--the Yankees' Luis Gil.  Gil has fallen back to Earth big time, though, and, as you could see, I don't even have him making the team.  Instead, I think the start should come down to Corbin Burnes and Seth Lugo.  Although, a strong case could also be made for Garrett Crochet, who was the White Sox' Opening Day starter despite having never started a game in his Major League career prior to this season.

Sale is lined up to pitch Monday, which means he'll probably also go on Saturday.  Skenes pitched on Friday, so he'll make a midweek start for his final start before the All*Star break.  And that's why I'm going with Paul Skenes as my National League starting pitcher.  Likewise, Lugo should be lined up after a Saturday start to only go once during the week next week.  Kansas City deserves to have a starter after the first half they've had, too, so Seth Lugo is my choice to start the All*Star Game for the American League.

The Caitlin Clark Effect

There's no denying the impact that Caitlin Clark has had on the sport of women's basketball.  Ratings for the NCAA Tournament skyrocketed during Iowa's back-to-back runs to the Championship Game.  And it wasn't just Iowa.  It led to increased interest in women's college basketball across the board.

Clark's popularity is without question, but some wondered whether the attention she generates would carry over into the WNBA.  Through the first half of her rookie season, all indications are that the momentum she's created isn't going down at all.  Quite the opposite, actually.  The Caitlin Clark Effect is real.  She's done just as much to increase interest in the WNBA as she did for women's college basketball.  The proof is in the numbers.

Caitlin Clark is so popular, in fact, that she evidently impacted other sports without even trying.  The UFL just concluded its first season and, while the league was happy with its TV numbers, the in-stadium attendance figures were disappointing.  Oddly, Daryl Johnston, the UFL's Executive VP of Football Operations, said Clark was one of the reasons.  Since, apparently, the WNBA and spring football are going after the same target audience.  The Caitlin Clark Effect is THAT powerful!

What Johnston said is obviously ridiculous, but there are other, more tangible, numbers that show just how popular Clark is.  Voting for the WNBA All*Star Game just concluded.  Clark, not surprisingly, was the leading vote-getter with more than 700,000 votes.  Last year's leading vote-getter was A'ja Wilson of the Las Vegas Aces...with 95,860!  The top five vote-getters in 2023 received 391,639 total votes.  This year, Clark got nearly double that by herself.  Overall, there was a 600 percent increase in the amount of votes cast this year compared to last year.

The WNBA's TV ratings are also higher than they've ever been.  Clark ended up on the Indiana Fever because they were terrible last year, which is how they got the No. 1 pick in the WNBA Draft.  Because they have Clark, though, most of the Fever's games have ended up on national television...which has proven to be a wise decision.  Again, the Caitlin Clark Effect.

They also loaded up on Indiana's games that they knew would be the biggest ratings-generators early in the season.  The Fever's first four games were against either the Sun or Liberty (two of the best teams in the league), and they've already played both teams three times.  They've also played the Chicago Sky, who have a highly-touted rookie of their own in Angel Reese, three times, and the most recent of those games on June 25 averaged 2.25 million viewers, making it the most-watched WNBA game in 23 years.

Whether that ratings success continues into the second half of the season is anyone's guess.  Clark and Indiana won't be featured on national TV nearly as much after the Olympic break, when the WNBA will also be competing with the start of the NFL and college football seasons.  They'll also hope to keep this momentum going after a month off, although, the U.S. winning another Olympic gold could certainly help provide a boost.

That Olympic break actually starts with the WNBA All*Star Game, which is set for July 20, less than a week before the Opening Ceremony in Paris.  We'll get our first look at the Olympic team during the WNBA All*Star Game, too, since in Olympic years, the matchup is Team USA vs. Team WNBA.  There were a lot of people who thought Clark should be on the Olympic team, so you know people will tune in to see her play against Team USA instead.

One of her teammates on Team WNBA will be Angel Reese.  The rivalry between the two has been brewing since Reese's LSU team beat Clark's Iowa squad in the 2023 National Championship Game, and it's only grown since they moved to the WNBA with Indiana and Chicago.  They'll be the faces of the WNBA for the next decade, and their rivalry certainly hasn't hurt the hype.  This is the first time they'll be teammates (although, you'd have to figure they'll both be Team USA regulars moving forward, as well).  And I think a lot of people may tune in just to see the two of them playing together.

While Clark has definitely been a huge factor in the WNBA's increased popularity, it wouldn't be fair to give her all the credit.  Because it's not just her.  Fellow rookies Reese and Cameron Brink (who, unfortunately, is out for the season after tearing her ACL) have helped, too.  And, while the rookies brought people in, it's the talented players who were already in the league who've kept those newfound fans watching.

Although, as much as they claim otherwise, Reese and Brink aren't the draw Clark is.  Most WNBA teams play in smaller venues than their NBA counterparts.  The demand for tickets to see Caitlin Clark is so high, though, that several teams have had to move their home game against Indiana to the NBA venue.  The Fever played the Aces in Las Vegas the other day in front of 20,000 fans at a sold-out T-Mobile Arena (many of whom were wearing No. 22 Fever or Iowa jerseys).

Indiana has gone from the second-lowest attendance in the league to the highest.  The Fever have drawn over 15,000 for every home game and have sold out the 17,274-seat Gainsbridge Fieldhouse five times this season.  Not surprisingly, they also lead the WNBA in road attendance.  Indiana has outdrawn the Liberty, who rank second in the WNBA in attendance, by 3,000 fans per game.  They were drawing fans despite starting the season 1-7 (a direct result of playing so many games against Connecticut and New York early).  Now they're winning!

Those attendance figures can be attributed almost entirely to Caitlin Clark.  Last year, only two WNBA teams, the Aces and Mercury, had an average attendance over 9,000.  Most WNBA games not involving the Fever don't even draw that many fans.  And teams certainly aren't moving games to larger venues when they play other opponents.  That may change in the future.  Hopefully it will.  But, right now, it's only Caitlin Clark and the Indiana Fever who are doing that.

This hopefully is just the beginning for the WNBA.  ESPN has even talked about potentially sharing the WNBA Finals with another network for the good of the league if it means they can get more in rights fees.  That likely wouldn't have been possible if not for Caitlin Clark.  The impact she's had on the WNBA in half of one season is immeasurable.  And it only figures to increase.  From in-arena attendance to TV ratings, the Caitlin Clark Effect is real.

Time For a Change

When the U.S. Men's National Team was poised to rehire Gregg Berhalter after the 2022 World Cup, I was all for it.  Even after all that stuff with the Reynas airing his dirty laundry came out, I still felt he was the right man for the job and that certainly shouldn't have disqualified him (especially after the details of what actually happened emerged).  I no longer feel that way.  Not after what happened in Copa America.

While it's not the low of failing to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, it's pretty close.  Nobody thought the United States would win the Copa America.  Getting out of a group that included Uruguay, Panama and Bolivia was the bare minimum people were expecting.  Instead, the Americans lost two games and managed to do something that had never happened before.  For the first time in 20 global/regional international tournaments they've hosted, they failed to get past the group stage.

That stat is bad enough.  What makes it worse, though, is what this Copa America meant to the U.S. Men's National Team.  It's less than two years until the United States hosts the 2026 World Cup.  This World Cup won't be like the 1994 World Cup.  People are expecting the U.S. to make some noise two years from now.  This was the biggest tournament the team will play in before that.  It was supposed to be the test of how they stack up against the top South American teams heading into the biggest tournament in U.S. soccer history.  Not only did it not go well, it was a total embarrassment!

It isn't just that they lost.  It's how.  After a great opening win over Bolivia, everything turned when Tim Weah got a (deserved) red card in the 18th minute against Panama.  The U.S. is better than Panama.  They know this.  Panama knows this.  But Panama's also a familiar opponent, made the game ugly, and took advantage of playing with an extra man for the better part of the final 70 minutes.

So, instead of the Uruguay game being essentially meaningless and only deciding seeding, it became a must-win.  While Uruguay is a good team, it was definitely a winnable game, and the U.S. started off well.  However, they generated no offensive chances until the end (when they were down a goal and had to press the issue).  No matter how well you play defensively, you can't win if you don't score.  It's that simple.  It was a must-win game, but they showed little to no urgency and at no point did you think the goal they needed (which eventually became the two goals they needed) would come.

Once again, the U.S. men fell to a highly-ranked opponent.  They've proven they can beat the other CONCACAF teams (the loss to Panama notwithstanding).  What they haven't done in Berhalter's tenure is beat a top team from Europe or South America.  In a pre-tournament friendly, they got their butts kicked 5-1 by Colombia, but did earn a draw against Brazil in their next game.  If the U.S. wants to be taken seriously as a contender on the world stage, they need to win those games.  Or, at the very least, be competitive against those teams.  That hasn't happened.

Since Berhalter's rehiring, the results simply haven't been there.  The team's record is right around .500 over the past 12 months, and the wins haven't exactly come against a who's who of the top teams in FIFA (Oman, Uzbekistan, Canada, Trinidad & Tobago).  They won the CONCACAF Nations League Finals in March (big freakin' deal!), but their only other win in 2024 was the Bolivia game in Copa America.  Meanwhile, they got smacked by Colombia and had a loss to Slovenia in January, in addition to the losses to Panama and Uruguay.

You can't say it's because of a lack of talent, either.  By all accounts, this is the best group of players the U.S. Men's National Team has ever had.  They're pretty much all based in Europe playing for some of the top clubs in the world, and, for the most part, actually playing.  Now, they aren't the "golden generation" as some want to claim since they haven't done anything to earn that title (which will always belong to the Landon Donovan/Clint Dempsey teams anyway), but the players are certainly good enough to hang with the world's best.

Berhalter seems to have the support of the locker room, too.  During the whole Reyna saga, the players publicly declared that they wanted him back, and they all seem to genuinely like him.  Even after they fizzled out of the Copa America, they had Berhalter's back.  But what else would you expect them to say...especially right after the game? 

And, frankly, the fact that the players like him so much may be part of the problem.  How much accountability is there in the locker room?  Have they gotten too complacent?  As Carli Lloyd said during the postgame, the women's players hated their coaches when she played for the National Team.  But you know what?  They got results.  So, whatever they were doing was obviously working.  And does it really matter if the players like their coach as long as the team wins?

You can't exactly get rid of the players, either.  Sure, you can make changes to the lineup or go to a different tactical formation, but the players themselves aren't the problem.  You aren't replacing Christian Pulisic or Tyler Adams with someone better.  Because that person doesn't exist.  So, it's up to the coach to get the best out of the talent he's got on the roster (and there's plenty of it).

Which brings me back to the coaching.  Jurgen Klinsmann got the boot in 2016 after a pair of disastrous results in World Cup qualifying.  He was replaced by Bruce Arena, who only lasted until the end of that unsuccessful qualifying campaign.  So, it's not unprecedented for U.S. Soccer to dismiss a coach based on the team's poor performance.  And that's exactly what the 2024 Copa America was.  Actually, scratch that.  It wasn't just a poor performance.  It was a terrible, embarrassing performance.

Fans of the U.S. Men's National Team deserve better than the display they saw at Copa America.  Sure, there were a bunch of other factors that had a direct bearing on the results (terrible officiating is right there at the top of the list), but the bottom line is they failed.  The team didn't get the job done on the biggest stage they've had since the Qatar World Cup and the only big stage they will have until they host the next World Cup.

The performance at Copa America did nothing to inspire confidence heading into the only home World Cup for a generation.  Keeping Gregg Berhalter as the team's manager wouldn't do anything to restore that confidence, either.  In fact, it would just be doubling down on something that clearly isn't working.  So, there really seems to be only one logical solution.  The U.S. Men's National Team needs a change at the top.  Immediately.